Change and variation in morphonotactics

Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna; Pestal, Lina

doi:10.1515/flih.2010.003

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Morphonotactics is the area of interaction between morphotactics and phonotactics (Dressler and Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, 2006) and has been investigated particularly for word-final consonant clusters and their distributional restrictions (Dressler et al, 2010). This paper deals in particular with word-final German consonant clusters, contrasting clusters which are allowed in monomorphemic units vs. those which only result from morphological concatenation or derivation, thus being exclusively morphonotactic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A computational approach to morphonotactics: evidence from German

Calderone¹,

Celata²,

Korecky‐Kröll³

et al. 2014

Language Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A computational approach to morphonotactics: evidence from German

Calderone¹,

Celata²,

Korecky‐Kröll³

et al. 2014

Language Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In fact, the existence of phonotactic sequences arising in speech through morphological processes can even be expected to disfavour, rather than support, the establishment of corresponding lexical structures. This hypothesis represents the core of the ‘morphonotactic’ research programme proposed by Dressler & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (2006) and elaborated in Dressler et al (2010) or (Zydorowicz 2007). They assume that the relationship between the phoneme sequences that a language allows lexically, and the ones that it produces through morphological operations is systematic and functional, and governed by domain-specific dynamics.…”

Section: Outlining Our Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Although we show that lexical VV/(n|l)d/ rhymes (as in [tʃi:ld] child or [hu:nd] hound ) may indeed have been stabilised by the frequent occurrence of morphologically produced counterparts, we argue against the more general hypothesis that segment sequences will get licensed in lexical phonotactics when they are frequently produced morphologically. Instead, we follow a proposal by Dressler & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (2006), elaborated in Dressler, Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Pestal (2010), who point out that languages normally tend to avoid homophonies between phonological structures that occur within simple morphemes and phonological structures that are produced through morphological operations such as concatenation (We henceforth refer to the former as ‘lexical’ and to the latter as ‘morphotactic’. )…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How rarities likegoldcame to exist: on co-evolutionary interactions between morphology and lexical phonotactics

Ritt

Kaźmierski

2015

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We address the question of when, how and why highly marked rhymes of the structure VVCC (as in gold, false or bind) came to be established in the lexical phonotactics of English. Specifically, we discuss two hypotheses. The first is that lexical VVCC clusters owe their existence to the fact that similar rhyme structures are produced routinely in verbal past tenses and third-person singular present tense forms (fails, fined), and in nominal plurals (goals, signs), The other is based on the insight emerging in morphonotactic research (Dressler & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2006) that languages tend to avoid homophonies between lexical and morphotactically produced structures. We hold both hypotheses against a body of OED and corpus data, reconstruct the phases in which the lexical VVCC rhymes that are still attested in Present-day English emerged, and relate them to the phases in which productive inflectional rules came to produce rhymes of the same type. We show that the emergence of morphotactic models is indeed likely to have played a role in establishing VVCC rhymes in the English lexicon, since VVCC rhymes of the types VV[sonorant]/d|z/ began to establish themselves in lexical phonotactics at the same period in which they also started to be produced in inflection, and clearly before similar types that had no inflectionally produced analogues (i.e. VV[sonorant]/t|s/ as in fault, dance). At the same time, we show that this does not necessarily contradict the hypothesis that homophonies between lexical and morphotactic rhymes are dispreferred. We argue that under the specific historical circumstances that obtained in English, natural ways of eliminating the resulting ambiguities failed to be available. Finally, we show that, once the phonotactically and semiotically dispreferred VV[sonorant]/d|z/ rhymes had been established, the emergence of morphotactically unambiguous rhymes of the types VV[sonorant]/t|s/ was to be expected, since they filled what was an accidental rather than natural gap in the phonotactic system of English (see Hayes & White 2013).

show abstract

“…The processing of sound sequences, and that of word-internal consonant sequences in particular, have been argued to depend, among other factors, on the morphology of words they are embedded in: some diphones, such as /ld/ or /nd/, occur across morpheme boundaries (call+ed, wan+ed) as well as morpheme internally (cold, wand), while others are restricted to a single morphological environment (/md/ as in seem+ed, and /mp/ as in lamp, respectively). This has been suggested in turn to affect their acquisition and diachronic development (Dressler et al, 2010;Korecky-Kröll et al, 2014;Leykum et al, 2015a;Zydorowicz, 2007). This work aims at assessing the influence of morphological status of consonantal sequences on the ease of their processing in speech perception.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the effect of ambiguity in compositionality signaling on the processing of diphones

Baumann

Kaźmierski

2018

Language Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consonantal diphones differ as to their ambiguity (whether or not they indicate morphological complexity reliably by occurring exclusively either within or across morphemes) and lexicality (how frequently they occur within morphemes rather than across morpheme boundaries). This study empirically investigates the influence of ambiguity and lexicality on the processing speed of consonantal diphones in speech perception. More specifically, its goal is to test the predictions of the Strong Morphonotactic Hypothesis, which asserts that phonotactic processing is influenced by morphological structure, and to clarify the two conceptions thereof present in extant research. In two discrimination task experiments, it is found that the processing of cross-morpheme diphones decreases with their ambiguity, but there is no processing difference between primarily cross-morphemic and morpheme-internal diphones. We conclude that the predictions of the Strong Morphonotactic Hypothesis are borne out only partially, and we discuss the discrepancies. Highlights:★ Ambiguity in signaling morphological complexity affects diphone processing ★ Speakers have probabilistic knowledge of how often diphone types span morpheme boundaries ★ Diphones that occur prototypically within morphemes are processed as fast as prototypically cross-morphemic diphones ★ Processing of cross-morphemic diphones is slow if they are ambiguous ★ Participants can be primed for analyzing diphones in nonce words as spanning a morpheme boundary

show abstract

Change and variation in morphonotactics

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

A computational approach to morphonotactics: evidence from German

A computational approach to morphonotactics: evidence from German

How rarities likegoldcame to exist: on co-evolutionary interactions between morphology and lexical phonotactics

Assessing the effect of ambiguity in compositionality signaling on the processing of diphones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About